John Locke’s Political Philosophy

Who should rule the ideal society? According to Locke, a Constitutionally Limited Monarchy should rule.
Views

Image Source: here

John Locke (1632-1704) was a British philosopher known as the theoretical architect of western democracy and as the father of empiricism and liberalism. John Locke lived during the times of the English civil war which was a result of the conflict between the Parliamentarians and King Charles l. John Locke’s father was the captain of the Parliamentarian forces. Locke's political philosophy sided with the parliamentarian and despised the absolute monarchism that Thomas Hobbes advocated for. Locke bid to create a better alternative to the theory of the divine right of  Kings and a better explanation for the state of nature that was sourly portrayed by Hobbes.

 What is an ideal state?

Locke’s ideal society was generated based on a critique of Hobbes’ ideal society. Thus, Locke started, just as Hobbes started, the Second Treatise of Civil Government clarifying the nature of man. Human beings are not wholly egoistic and selfish. Human beings often cooperate with one another and even work selflessly for the good of others. Locke further argued that the life of man outside political authority constricts would be characterized by equality and perfect freedom bounded by the ‘Law of Nature which states “no one ought to harm another in his(her) life, health, liberty, or possessions.”. The state of nature for Locke is not a state of war like the way Hobbes puts it. But Locke also noted that sometimes human beings act selfishly; consequently, they might violate the law of nature. And in such a case the victim was entitled to punish the wrongdoer. However, Locke acknowledged that resting the power of punishment in the hands of victims would eventually lead to bias judgement as the determination of right or wrong, the capacity to punish and the degree of punishment would be centered on an individual alone as their own judge and jury. And this provided a good reason for why human beings had to leave the state of nature voluntarily to form a society. And this society must overcome the shortfalls in the state of nature by erecting institutions that provide the following:

  ✓ judiciary to administer the law objectively.

  ✓ An executive to enforce the law.

  ✓ legislature to put up steady and uniform laws.

Who should rule the ideal society?

According to Locke, a Constitutionally Limited Monarchy should rule.

Why should the monarchy be Constitutionally Limited instead of being absolute?

For Locke:

 Absolute monarchy created a situation where one man attempted to gain absolute domination of others, and this would lead to a state of war as no individual has a natural right to subordinate other individuals (a refute to the theory of divine right of kings ).

Absolute monarchy was on a basis that relied on force, not law, and force could lead to a state of war.

Absolute monarchy could violate human rights as it governed every aspect of human conduct.

Henceforth, for Locke, all human beings are equal before the law, including monarchs and those that make, enforce, and administer the laws. Rulers were put above only because individuals in the society consented, and approved them to impose a rule of peace in accordance with the prescribe rights and duties by the social contract. And this rule is to be Constitutionally Limited. The rulers are to be mere delegates as the real power lays in the people.


Locke's Contribution to rights

According to Locke all human beings have intrinsic (Naturally essential) absolute natural rights that are given  to them by the Creator thus society cannot take them away or invent news ones. Locke's emphasizes on the right to own private property which include a human being's life, possessions, and liberty. For Locke these were the most important rights to uphold as there infringement was tantamount to an assault upon a human being's physical person. Furthermore, this argument for absolute rights  by Locke can be seen in the united states declaration of independence by Thomas Jefferson.

Locke's views on other forms of governance

Locke advocated for the majority rule as one of the institutions that Locke suggested should be erected which the executive, were to be elected to office by the majority. However, Locke argued that power should not be concentrated in the executive but should be shared with the judiciary and legislature. these three institution should further, conduct checks and balances on each other to safeguard  the peoples from being exploited. lastly if one analyses Locke's political theory one will eventually conclude it is the sources of inspiration for democratic society that have successfully existed for centauries now.

Criticism of Locke

1.      Locke argued that humans have absolute natural rights but this absoluteness is incompatible with the public good. eg the freedom of speech, one may say things that insight violence but since Locke argues for absoluteness of rights we cannot penalize such a person. even though people die during the violence that such a person has in sighted.

2.  Locke prefers the rule of the majority but still this can be tyrannical because the minorities consideration is significant as John Stuart Mill puts it.


Check out the next Political philosopher on 'Who should rule' 

question: John Rawls here


Adapted from:

Popkin, R.H & Stroll, A. (1972). Introduction to philosophy. 2d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Reference

Popkin, R.H & Stroll, A. (1972). Introduction to philosophy. 2d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Post a Comment